roni.chessman: <It's interesting that the player with best results was Halay, Taufik (ELO 2299), he drew both Junior 8 and Chessmaster, while GM Susanto Megaranto(ELO 2463) managed a single draw against Schredder 8 and GM Utut Adianto with an ELO of almost 2600 lost all his games... >

If the guy was truly a GM i'm sure he'd put up more of a fight. All i'm sure of now about seeing this, is that this GM was most likely intimidated. The GM probably had no idea what he was up against..I mean c'mon...Fritz 8! Still he might have the program at home and say "do'h" everytime it crushes him.

dafish298: ok acouple things about this match...first off..alot of higher players think it was a joke and i have to agree..and of course the 'chips' clobbered the humans lol, because the humans that were playing sucked. im not saying im better and i realize they are titled players but they do not stand a chance against the top computers in the world..can someone explain to me why these players did this event? in my opinion you would have to be either a computer expert player like roman or bron or be a top 50 player to be able to contend with computers at this level.

lostemperor: May I remind for those who like to forget, especially those who are most critical, that these Indonesian players with an average of 2421 did not do worse than topgrandmasters with an avarage of 2681! http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail....

If I'm not mistaken I see Fritz scoring 3.5/4 against Topalov, Ponomariov and Karjakin what is excactly the same as the "weak" Indochess bunch. Only Deep Junior has learned from then and did better now.

In fact, if I'm correct, the "weaklings" did even better! In comparison to the ratings of the topgrandmaster they should have only scored two draws out of 16. So that is an improvement of 50%.

What it proves? That stronger players do not necessary play better against topcomputers.

lostemperor: To explain my calculation (so you won't think I make this all up): the average of the topGM (in which two of the world's top 10 or 11) is 2681. Which is 260 points higher than the Indonesian players. I know that 200 elo rating difference means about 75% scoring chance. So 260 points is about 80% expectation (or 8-2). Rating experts correct me if I'm wrong. .

The topGM play 12 rounds and got an awful 3.5 points. If they had play 16 rounds their score would be 4,66 in the line of the previous results. The rating of the Indonesian players would indicate a 25% score of the topGM. 25% of 4.66 is about 1.18 points. But the topGM played against slightly deeper versions of computers.

It is a pity that Utut Adianto has scored very disappointingly. Perhaps the disaster in other parts of the country has affected the mind of the strongest player in the team.

roni.chessman: <Sooner or later raw processing power and advances in algorithms has to overtake the human mind in the chess arena.>

Even if that's a possibility,computers still do not have the intuition to learn for themselves. SuperGMs still know their lines and could easily draw their games. Unless chess turns into something like Fischerandom, these computers, with unimaginable playing strength will only end up drawing the superGMs over and over and over (that's when the computers are immune to mistakes)

csmath: SuperGMs could compete with computers until recently. Ponomariov and Topalov lost to computers just last year and every year more they will be even bigger difference.
The only way they can beat computers is applying anti-computer chess and this is actually how Kasparov survived against Fritz in his recent match.
If the game goes into open confrontation superGM is lost against superC.
The best chance for superGM are asimmetric openings like French, like Sicilian etc but to beat computer he has to be extremely precise. There are no blunders, once your position is real bad you can resign, computer does not miss the forced combinations.

lostemperor: I still think the best humans are capable of beating, so are about as strong as the best computers. Topalov sort of showed he was almost capable tieing the machines. But I must admit these results of the recent man vs machine matches has really baffled me.

I will buy Fritz, the computer I played in its developing stages 20 years ago, and beat that thing. Or at least try to make a draw. I will kick the damn machine and I mean literally :).

lostemperor: <nikolaas> LOL. But let's see who will have the last laugh. When I got one chance some time, I'll get four queens and make Fritz suffer not mating or stalemating it, till it begs for mercy;)

csmath: In his match with Fritz recently (4 games) Kasparov sort of admited that he is not superior any more. In the past he played open confrontation and the results were mixed (lost to Deep Blue) but this time he adopted anti-computer strategy after he was on the verge of another loss to machine. That is how he won the one game in that match. It is not a game to be proud of, it was a typical anti-computer chess game.

Plus the superGMs are allowed to draw with a machine by the operator's decision when machine would not draw and not once machine wins a "draw" ending against GMs because machine drills it up to the ends of the earth and people lose concentration. Also these matches are all short, 4-6 games. Need to know that machine can play 10,000 games with equal strength and human cannot.

Besides there is a better program than Fritz out there, it is called Shredder.

northbridge: <It is not a game to be proud of, it was a typical anti-computer chess game.>

I don't see anything wrong with playing anti-computer chess, you make it sound like it was almost cheating.

Anti-computer chess is a way to exploit the weaknesses of the opponent just like the computer exploits the weaknesses of humans, so I see nothing wrong with it. The purpose was to win, not to play a beautiful game.

Kasparov revealed the weakness of the machine just like his own weakness (that of being prone to error like any human) was revealed in the previous game when he blundered in a good position.

Of course I agree with you about computer chess but I think matches between GMs and computers will still be entertaining for some time ... new elements could be introduced to balance the odds, access to a database comes to mind, but it is nevertheless a loosing battle.

csmath: @Shams:
I doubt that Hydra is better than Shredder as a program. It was run on a cluster meaning that the hardware was much, much better than the one Shredder used in the match.
How good as a program Hydra is we don't really know since it is not comercially available and it was not compared to others on equal hardware.

shortsight: Although Kasparov only managed to draw his match with Fritz8, one needs to know that Kasparov was using the 3D spec to view the game, there's no real board, and at times, Kasparov just took off the spec, and thought without looking at the board. it's like blindfold games against computer with occasion peek at the board.

RisingChamp: Firstly Redfish if you think chess can be solved in 50 yrs you probably are not very knowledgable about computer chess.Secondly computer programs beta humans at time controls which are designed for human competition-I would like to see Fritz beat even me at correspondence chess,let alone a GM.Thirdly computers are allowed databases,without the databases they would just be helplessly at the mercy of grandmasters in sharp openings.Humans should be allowed databases too or machines should be deprived of them.

Leviathan: <RisingChamp>... but human players are allowed intelligence,without the intelligence they would just be helplessly at the mercy of computers. Machines should be allowed intelligence too or humans should be deprived of it ;)

Seriously now, if machines worked like humans I would agree with you: I would consider unfair if my opponent played with the help of a database. But computer programs do not work like human minds, they just can't understand a position or elaborate a strategy. They can only find the best move in the position they are given - and if databases are necessary for them to work fine then why shouldn't we allow them? That's man vs machine: machines must be allowed to do their best, whatever this implies. Anyway I believe than no programming "trick" (databases, opening books, tablebases, ...) is ever going to be superior to that intelligence thing that machines will simply never have, therefore machines must be able to use those "tricks" to compensate their lack of it.

RisingChamp: If Machines can use "whatever is nessecary to work fine" than humans should allowed the databases too,especially considering that a human grandmaster is actually miles beeter at using a database than a computer.The database is not inseperably part of a computer,whereas intelligence most definitely is part of a human being.

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
login now.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.

No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.

No personal attacks against other members.

Nothing in violation of United States law.

No posting personal information of members.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.